HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » alwaysinasnit » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

alwaysinasnit

Profile Information

Name: Dolores
Gender: Female
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Thu Nov 30, 2017, 01:58 PM
Number of posts: 3,225

Journal Archives

Excellent analysis of the Mueller report for those who, for whatever reason, don't read the whole

thing.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:53 PM (49 replies)

A question for the legal beagles here. I watched Rachel tonight and in discussing

Mueller's report, she mentioned the two paths to make 45 accountable; impeachment or criminal charges once 45 leaves office. In describing the criminal charges path, Rachel mentioned that there is a statute of limitations of 5 years from the date of the criminal act (obstruction of justice). Mueller made a point of saying that he is following the DOJ's prohibition against indicting a sitting president. If that is the case, can a valid argument be made that that same DOJ policy justifies the tolling of the statute of limitations?

Any thoughts?
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Fri Apr 19, 2019, 09:26 PM (9 replies)

Here's the most crucial paragraph from the Mueller report (Rawstory)

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/heres-crucial-paragraph-mueller-report/

....
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not permissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

This paragraph is so important because it lays out why the obstruction portion of the report matters. Attorney General Bill Barr has dismissed the obstruction charges, saying that because Mueller didn’t make a determination about whether Trump committed a crime, it was up to him as the head of the Justice Department to make that call.

....
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Thu Apr 18, 2019, 05:06 PM (6 replies)

Why tRump is desperate to hide the Mueller report and his tax returns

From David Cay Johnston's DCReport

https://www.dcreport.org/2019/04/09/why-trump-wants-the-mueller-report-and-his-taxes-kept-secret/

What the FBI May Have on Trump

What FBI agents know, or might know, about Trump’s financial dealings during the years he worked with Sater would be of immense concern to Trump, especially if he laundered money for Russian-speaking individuals or their organizations.

The documents also help explain why Trump falsely testified under oath in a civil case that he barely knows Sater, even though the two men worked closely together for years. Trump gave the mobster an office in the Trump Organization suite in Trump Tower after he was sentenced, just a few doors down from his own office, said Michael Cohen, who was for years Trump’s lawyer and fixer.
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Tue Apr 9, 2019, 01:35 PM (4 replies)

Two of capitalism's biggest defenders just confessed that it's no longer working for a lot of

Americans.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/capitalism-isnt-working-everyone-even-free-market-champions-realize/

Most of us have figured that out but I think it is significant that some experts are now admitting it too. It's a start at any rate.
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Mon Mar 18, 2019, 01:38 PM (13 replies)

While we are being distracted with 45's shenanigan's, this is happening...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/business/bank-regulation.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The Federal Reserve said it would adjust the structure of its annual “stress tests,” which measure the ability of leading banks to withstand a potential economic or financial storm. The changes are likely to make it easier for banks to get regulatory approval to pay higher dividends or buy back their own shares.

Separately, a federal oversight panel announced that it planned to no longer designate big, non-bank financial institutions — insurers, asset managers and the like — as “systemically important.” The classification subjected such firms to more intrusive government regulation.

Taken together, the announcements on Wednesday represented a big win for the financial industry, which has been arguing since the Obama administration that a flurry of regulations imposed following the financial crisis were onerous and made it harder for banks to make loans and support economic growth. Bank executives also argue that because the industry is much financially stronger than it was a decade ago,many recent regulations are now unnecessary.
.
.
.
Critics, however, argued that the relaxation of the rules, while financially beneficial to bank shareholders and executives, will lead to a less safe, less transparent financial system that is more vulnerable to a repeat of last decade’s devastating crisis.


*********

Opening the door to another severe recession like the one we had 11 years ago????
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Wed Mar 6, 2019, 10:20 PM (4 replies)

To the thoughtful senders of hearts, my sincere appreciation and I wish you tranquility and health.

Posted by alwaysinasnit | Sat Feb 9, 2019, 02:17 AM (2 replies)

To whomever sent me that heart, you made my day (and then some). Many thanks!

Posted by alwaysinasnit | Fri Feb 8, 2019, 02:54 AM (3 replies)

tRump's talking smack about Venezuela seems to be a distraction, but if this administration does

decide to use military action, then Venezuela is an easier target than John Bolton's wet dream of attacking Iran. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that US policy regarding Latin America is one that we should not be proud of.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/cia-in-venezuela-7-rules-for-regime-change/

Posted by alwaysinasnit | Wed Jan 30, 2019, 08:38 PM (0 replies)

Can Republican congress critters be considered "accessories after the fact" if they continue

to defend or even stand by and do nothing (complicit) to remove tRump after these last devastating filings by Mueller and SDNy?

Accessory After The Fact
Definition

An accessory-after-the-fact is someone who assists 1) someone who has committed a crime, 2) after the person has committed the crime, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the crime, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, among other things, obstruction of justice.

Any thoughts?
Posted by alwaysinasnit | Sat Dec 8, 2018, 05:20 PM (8 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »